As a result of the two resent "not treasure" verdicts in Suffolk of silver and gold pierced coins, the advice on the PAS website has been updated with examples of coins submitted as treasure (two of which were declared, the 3rd does not say) which the FLO's may use as "prima facie case" examples at inquest.

Yes it is just waiting to be delivered to the museum. I have my certificate from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport as myself and the landowner donated it. The coroner made the decision based on the information given by the BM.

Surely the FLO has to comply with laws re coinage not change the rules when it comes to when a museum wants a piece. This is where the system let's all down.

Not quite sure I follow? If it has been modified then it can't be classed as a coin. I am sure the case where the museum wanted it had no bearing on whether it should be declared treasure. If the stipulation is that if it is pierced and is obvious that it has been done to make it into jewellery then it becomes an object not an coin.

There are some coins that are pierced to remove from circulation (a lot of commonwealth seem to be pierced) and Roman coins that have been nailed to structures and these "may" fall outside of the definition. Some gold coins are pierced as touch pieces so would also probably fall outside of the definition but that could be a grey area as they were worn as charms.

Seems on this occasion it was the coroner who didn't seem to follow the guidelines, not the FLO / BM.

Surely the FLO has to comply with laws re coinage not change the rules when it comes to when a museum wants a piece. This is where the system let's all down.

Not quite sure I follow? If it has been modified then it can't be classed as a coin. I am sure the case where the museum wanted it had no bearing on whether it should be declared treasure. If the stipulation is that if it is pierced and is obvious that it has been done to make it into jewellery then it becomes an object not an coin.

There are some coins that are pierced to remove from circulation (a lot of commonwealth seem to be pierced) and Roman coins that have been nailed to structures and these "may" fall outside of the definition. Some gold coins are pierced as touch pieces so would also probably fall outside of the definition but that could be a grey area as they were worn as charms.

Seems on this occasion it was the coroner who didn't seem to follow the guidelines, not the FLO / BM.

Most must fall into a grey area

Pierced keeps the weight the same to keep its value

Drilled removes metal.

I believe soldiers and travellers often pierced coin and sew them into their clothing.
Also a coin nailed above a front door
Or strung together like an early money belt.

As I see it most drilled will be jewellery
And most pierced will be functional

Surely the FLO has to comply with laws re coinage not change the rules when it comes to when a museum wants a piece. This is where the system let's all down.

Not quite sure I follow? If it has been modified then it can't be classed as a coin. I am sure the case where the museum wanted it had no bearing on whether it should be declared treasure. If the stipulation is that if it is pierced and is obvious that it has been done to make it into jewellery then it becomes an object not an coin.

There are some coins that are pierced to remove from circulation (a lot of commonwealth seem to be pierced) and Roman coins that have been nailed to structures and these "may" fall outside of the definition. Some gold coins are pierced as touch pieces so would also probably fall outside of the definition but that could be a grey area as they were worn as charms.

Seems on this occasion it was the coroner who didn't seem to follow the guidelines, not the FLO / BM.

It just had a hole, no added suspension loop so it could be "spent" like hack silver. If Museums don't want them, they are "returned to finder" and there is no inquest. The old FLO advice was to put holed coin through inquest, however better condition examples have been returned to finder (of more common coins) which suggested selection was based on the coin and the Treasure act does not apply to single coins. I was not asked to donate although BM has asked for a roman copper-which was donated.

The independent coroner makes a decision on evidence/argument at the inquest referring to the law for guidance. The FLO's/BM have there own interpretation of the law which has been updated.

My coin was wanted by the museum because it had a hole in it and not because it was a coin. It wasn't the British Museum and it wasn't because it was a rare coin but because it was a roman coin made into a piece of jewellery. It is more obvious from the orientation that it was being worn decoratively.

The interpretation of the law is any object made of silver or gold etc and as it has a hole in it, it could potentially become an object and that is the discussion that the BM / FLO puts forward to advise the coroner to adopt. If the coroner does not understand the argument put forward by the FLO then it is they who are interpreting the law incorrectly. The argument should have been clear that it should not be considered as a coin but an object. This is what happened at my inquest as the coroner read out the report and agreed with its findings.

I think all we are doing is seeing both sides of the coin here and we may have to agree to disagree.

Just a question, if it had been a non-valuable bog standard silver coin like mine, would there have still been a challenge? Was it challenged due to it being rare or challenged the set a precedent that no holed coin should be treasure?

Yes. The circumstances of the find have great sentimental value.
No. Being rare makes it less likely for me to retain.
No. Although the debate and result proves an grey area exists which can be debated at each inquest if needed. Which is not helpful to finders or FLO's(Treasure dept).

I wonder what BM's response would be to those questions substituting "claimed" for "Challenge"

We'll see in next months "The Searcher" what the Treasure Depart has to say about it, they have written a letter. Perhaps there will be less grey?

Not necessarily. If it was treasure then they may have had a different funding pot to dip into. I don't know for sure but they may have a general budget for acquiring "standard" finds and then a treasure pot to help purchase the treasure finds.